Constitution and Labour Laws

Reena has joined as the Management Trainee in the Company Secretary department of PP Ltd. in the month of September, 2022. The Company is a listed company. Apart from passing CS Professional examination, Reena has also completed her MBA (Finance) from a reputed Management Institute. She is passionate to learn the compliances under the Companies Act, 2013, the SEBI Act, 1992 and other laws applicable to the company. On the request of Reena, the Company Secretary of the company advises Reena to meet Sanjeev, who is the senior partner of AB Solicitors, the legal consultants of the company, for understanding the compliances under the various laws.

On 10th July 2023, Reena visits the office of Sanjeev. During the discussion, Sanjeev highlights that in the CS department of PP Ltd., the male CS trainees are getting higher stipend as compared to the stipend of female CS trainees. Sanjeev explains her about the reforms proposed by Code on Social Security, 2020, which amends and consolidates the laws relating to social security with the goal to extend social security to all employees and workers either in the organised or unorganised or any other sectors or for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. He also mentions that in order to ensure security for all workers, the Central Government has subsumed nine Labour Laws into the Social Security Code to secure the rights of workers for insurance, pension, gratuity, maternity benefit etc. Further, the Government can fund the contribution of workers from disadvantaged section. He also informs that being a cotton textile unit, there are some restrictions for PP Ltd. on engagement of women and children near cotton openers, but the company is not following the prescribed rules.

After the meeting, Sanjeev advises Reena to come again to his office on the next day so that he may explain her about the pending legal cases. She returns back to the office of PP Ltd. and prepares a detailed report on equal pay for equal work and laws which are proposed to be merged in Social Security Code and restriction on employment of women and children. She sends the said report to the Managing Director of PP Ltd. through email with a copy to the senior partner of the legal consultants of the company.

As per the advice of Sanjeev, Reena visits the office of AB Solicitors, legal consultants, again on 11th July 2023. On reaching the office of legal consultants, she is informed that Sanjeev is on leave for the day due to urgent personal work. Mukesh, who is the junior partner in the legal consultancy firm, tells her that he is preparing replies in respect of various legal cases of the company and she should also learn how to prepare such replies. Reena being excited to learn new things enters into the chamber of Mukesh. Mukesh tells Reena that he may provide very useful case studies to her for her learning and starts making physical contact and advances with her. Being aggrieved by the behaviour of Mukesh, Reena returns to the office of PP Ltd. and makes a complaint before the internal complaints committee of the company for sexual harassment. Reena wants that her identity, address and contents of her complaint should not be published, communicated or made known to the public. In view of the above, answer the following :

Hindustan Power Supply Ltd. (HPSL) is a wholly owned Government Company. The company employed a diverse workforce, including both full-time employees and contractual workers, who played important roles in the company’s success. However, as the company expanded, disparities in pay and benefits between these two groups began to surface.

Rajesh, holds a degree in Electrical Engineering (BE) from UGC recognized university having over 10 years of experience in the company. He has been working on projects alongside full-time employees and had been a key contributor to HPSL for over a decade. As an Assistant Engineer, he worked on numerous high-profile power generation and transmission projects, often collaborating closely with full-time employees. Despite his contributions being at par with those of his full-time colleagues, Rajesh’s compensation remained significantly lower.

He also lacked the job security and benefits, such as health insurance and paid leave, that were provided to full-time employees.

Over the years, the disparity between Rajesh’s compensation and that of his full-time counterparts, like Meera, a full-time Executive Engineer, who joined the company around the same time as Rajesh, enjoying higher pay, benefits, and job security became more pronounced. Meera, who had great respect for Rajesh’s skills and work ethic, was aware of the inequity but felt uncertain about how to address it within the corporate structure. Meanwhile, Rajesh’s growing frustration began to affect his motivation and sense of loyalty to the company.

One evening, after discussing his situation with a friend, Rajesh was introduced to Anjali, a renowned Advocate in service matters and employee related issues. Rajesh shared his concerns with Anjali, who informed him about a significant legal precedent in India– ‘Dhirendra Chamoli Vs. State of U.P.’, whereas Hon’ble Apex Court passed the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. Anjali also referenced the recent judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab & Ors. vs Jagjit Singh & Ors., in which the Court primarily addressed the regularization of temporary employees and strongly affirmed the principle of “equal pay for equal work.” According to this principle, Rajesh, who was performing the same duties as full-time employees, was entitled to equal compensation, regardless of his contractual status.

Empowered by this information, Rajesh decided to take action. With Anjali’s guidance, he and several other contractual workers in the company submitted a formal grievance to Patel, the Chief General Manager, Human Resources of the company. The grievance outlined their concerns about the pay disparity and referenced the various judgements of Supreme Court, requesting the company to review its compensation practices to ensure fairness.

Patel, a seasoned HR professional with a strong commitment to ethical business practices, took the grievance seriously. He initiated a comprehensive review of the company’s compensation policies and consulted with legal experts to understand the implications of the judgements of Supreme Court with respect to ‘Equal pay for Equal work’ in the corporate context. Recognizing that maintaining the current pay disparity was both legally risky and ethically questionable, Patel decided to take corrective action.

Over the next few weeks, Patel led the development of a new compensation policy in the company. The policy introduced a standardized pay scale for all employees, ensuring that those performing similar roles received equal pay, irrespective of their employment status. This change was communicated transparently across the company, with efforts made to address any concerns and ensure a smooth transition. The Management also took the steps for registration under Atal Beemit Vyakti Kalyan Yojna (ABVKY).

The implementation of the new pay structure had a positive impact on the company’s workforce.

Contractual workers, who had long felt undervalued, now experienced a renewed sense of commitment and motivation. Rajesh, in particular, felt a deep sense of satisfaction and loyalty towards the Company, knowing that his contributions were finally being recognized and rewarded fairly. Meera and other full-time employees also welcomed the change, appreciating the company’s commitment to fairness.

Under Patel’s leadership, the Company not only resolved the pay disparity but also set a precedent for other companies in the industry. The company’s proactive approach to addressing the issue enhanced employee morale, reduced employee turnover, and reinforced its reputation as a fair and progressive employer.

In view of the above, answer the following :

NovaGen Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., located in Hyderabad, is a biotechnology manufacturing company engaged in producing diagnostic reagents and enzyme-based medical testing kits. The establishment consists of fermentation units, reagent-mixing chambers, cold-storage rooms, packaging lines, and a molecular biology laboratory. As on 31st March 2026, NovaGen employed 628 workers, including scientists, technicians, machine operators and administrative staff. Out of these, 214 were women employees working in laboratory, packaging, HR and documentation departments.

Due to the nature of its production, the State Government classified NovaGen as a hazardous process establishment. The company operates three shifts (6 a.m. to 2 p.m., 2 p.m. to 10 p.m. and 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.) to maintain continuous production. As per company policy, all supervisory and managerial employees must work in rotational shifts, including night duties.

On 12th January, 2025, Tanya, a postgraduate in Molecular Biology, joined NovaGen as a Quality Assurance Supervisor. Her duties included sterility testing, reagent validation and batch approval. Her work area was adjacent to the fermentation hall, where exposure to disinfectants and biological agents was common. She was provided PPE such as gloves, masks, and lab coats.

Her performance was consistently rated excellent and on 10th August 2025, she was promoted to Deputy Manager (Quality Assurance). Her responsibilities increased, and she was required to supervise multiple testing lines and ensure compliance with quality protocols.

On 15th October 2025, the HR department informed her that she would now be included in the night-shift rotation. Tanya expressed concerns about travelling at night due to limited public transport and inadequate lighting in the industrial zone. She also highlighted that the company-provided cab service for women employees was irregular and often unavailable during late hours. Despite her concerns, management insisted that rotational shifts were mandatory for all supervisory staff and that no exceptions could be made.

During November and early December, Tanya experienced fatigue and discomfort, which she initially attributed to the demanding shift schedule. On 22nd December 2025, after a routine medical examination, she was informed that she was pregnant. She immediately notified HR and submitted a medical certificate advising her to avoid night shifts, prolonged standing, and exposure to disinfectants and biological agents.

Tanya formally requested exemption from night duties and temporary reassignment to a safer work area. However, management rejected her request, stating that the rotational shift policy applied uniformly and that the laboratory environment was safe enough. She was instructed to continue performing her duties without modification.

On 12th February 2026, during a night shift, Tanya experienced dizziness due to chemical fumes from a disinfectant spill in the adjacent fermentation area. She was taken to a nearby hospital, where doctors reiterated that she must avoid hazardous exposure. She again requested reassignment, but the company refused, stating that operational requirements did not permit any deviation from the shift policy.

On 1st April 2026, Tanya proceeded on maternity leave as per company procedure. She delivered a child on 10th May 2026 and formally informed the company on 12th May 2026.

Due to shortage of supervisory staff in the Quality Assurance Department, management emailed her on 20th May 2026, asking her to resume duties by 5th June 2026, offering her a morning shift. The communication stated that her early return would help stabilize production schedules and reduce workload pressure on the department.

Tanya replied that she could consider joining only if the company arranged a creche facility, as she had an infant and required childcare support. She also pointed out that several women employees had been requesting a creche for years, but no action had been taken. She emphasized that without a creche, it would be impossible for her to resume duties so soon after childbirth.

Management responded that due to financial constraints and lack of space within the premises, establishing a creche was not possible at present. They stated that the matter might be reviewed in the future but could not be implemented immediately.

The situation created significant concern among women employees, who felt that the company was not providing adequate welfare measures. Tanya's case highlighted issues relating to workplace safety, maternity protection and statutory welfare facilities in hazardous establishments.

In view of the above, answer the following :

Odisha Coal Mining Ltd. (OCML) contracted external parties for the transportation of crushed coal between 1984 and 1994. To carry out various essential tasks such as coal spill removal, equipment operation, and railway siding maintenance, the contractors employed 32 workers. These tasks were integral to OCML’s operations and needed to be performed consistently as part of the company’s daily functioning.

The workers, represented by the OCML Coal Mines Workers’ Union, sought regularization of their employment. The union argued that the nature of the work being done was not temporary but rather permanent and ongoing, which should have entitled these workers to regular employment rather than being outsourced to contractors. They also invoked the National Coal Wage Agreement-IV (NCWA-IV), which, in its terms, prohibited the outsourcing of work that was permanent and essential to the company’s operations.

Specifically, the NCWA-IV, dated July 27, 1989, aimed to protect workers in permanent roles from being replaced with casual or contract workers.

In response to the union’s demands, the Assistant Labour Commissioner initiated a conciliation process, which led to a settlement on April 5, 1997, under Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central)

Rules, 1957. According to this settlement, 19 out of the 32 workers were regularized as General Mazdoors. However, 13 workers were excluded from this regularization and were classified by OCML as ‘casual workers,’ rather than as permanent workers.

The exclusion of the 13 workers led to disputes between the union and OCML, which were referred to the Industrial Tribunal. The core issue before the Tribunal was whether the 13 excluded workers were engaged in work of a perennial nature, similar to the tasks carried out by the 19 workers who were regularized. The Tribunal examined testimonies from various sources, including OCML’s personnel manager, who acknowledged that all 32 workers performed identical tasks, which were vital to the daily operations of OCML.

After reviewing the evidence, the Tribunal ruled on May 23, 2002, that the exclusion of the 13 workers was unjustified. It directed OCML to regularize their employment and pay them back wages for the period of their wrongful exclusion. OCML, dissatisfied with the Tribunal’s decision, challenged it in the Orissa High Court. The company argued that the 1997 settlement was binding and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to alter its terms. However, the High Court dismissed OCML’s petition, affirming the Tribunal’s decision. The court noted that all 32 workers had been engaged in the same essential and perennial tasks, and therefore, the settlement could not be used as a basis to deny regularization to the excluded workers. The High Court also dismissed a subsequent review petition filed by OCML on November 11, 2021.

Following this, OCML appealed to the Supreme Court, raising the following key points :

•That the 1997 settlement was binding on all parties under Section 19(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as it had not been terminated or modified.

•That the 13 excluded workers were engaged in ‘casual’ work, which was different from the ‘perennial’ tasks performed by the 19 regularized workers.

•That the Tribunal had erred in awarding back wages, as there was no evidence of the workers being unemployed during the period in question. OCML cited the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd.

v.K.P. Agrawal [(2007) 2 SCC 433] in support of their argument.

The Union countered these arguments by emphasizing that :

•All 32 workers had performed the same essential tasks for OCML, making their work undeniably permanent in nature.

•Their duties were continuous and integral to the company’s coal transportation process, and as such, should be treated as part of the company’s regular operations.

•The exclusion of the 13 workers from regularization was arbitrary, unjust, and violated principles of fairness and equity.

•The workers were entitled to back wages because they had been wrongfully denied regular employment, which had caused them financial harm.

In view of the above, answer the following :